Why did California’s major housing bill fail so quickly?

Share this:

Of the countless housing bills carried this year in Sacramento, SB 827 has hogged the limelight, energizing supporters with its potential to transform cities and suburbs up and down the state and cut driving commutes. But its far-reaching provisions have drawn withering criticism from opponents, most recently the Los Angeles and San Francisco city councils. ( Photo by David Crane, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

SACRAMENTO — Without the political heft of an official housing package backed by top legislative leaders and the governor, a proposal that could have added millions of apartments and condominiums throughout the state failed suddenly this week at its first committee hearing, giving its champions no time to finesse the thorny policy and politics of development.

Last year’s package gave staying power to tough housing bills, such as one to fast-track housing near public transportation, which was signed into law last fall, said Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, author of the ill-fated Senate Bill 827.

“This year, that dynamic does not exist,” he said.

Others working behind the scenes to advance or thwart SB 827 — which would have forced California cities to allow apartment buildings within a half mile of rail and ferry stops — have offered varying theories about why it failed so quickly: It was too flawed to fix; it was killed by insider politics; it is an election year, when lawmakers are loathe to stick out their necks on controversial legislation. The bill was also sponsored by a political newcomer, the pro-development California YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) coalition, a group that — for all of its publicity and momentum — is still finding its bearings in Sacramento.

The vote sent a powerful message about the role the state Legislature is willing to take amid an ever-worsening housing crisis, said Ethan Elkind, who directs the climate program at UC Berkeley Law School’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment and who supported the bill.

“For them to just strangle it in the crib like that,” he said, “indicates that this relatively big approach to rein in local government isn’t going to fly anytime soon in California.”

The proposal was not the typical stuff of wonky housing policy. A ew analysis by the data firm UrbanFootprint found that if every parcel of land along the 45-mile El Camino Real corridor was redeveloped according to the new height limits allowed under SB 827, the number of homes along the route — from San Bruno to San Jose — would triple to 453,000.

But it also found that a potentially less contentious alternative, adding homes to commercial developments along the same corridor, would nearly double the housing stock.

Wiener said he knew going into Tuesday’s committee hearing that the votes he needed were, at best, up in the air. But rather than pull the bill, he decided to proceed and hope for the best.

“I knew we had at least an outside shot, and we thought it was important to call the question,” he said.

Wiener could be forgiven for his optimism. Last year, another contentious bill from the senator — bypassing city approval hurdles for some housing developments — managed to survive fraught policy committee hearings, eventually making it into law. Along the way, he was able to neutralize much of the opposition, including from labor.

But he didn’t have a chance to smooth over concerns around development and local control this time. His colleagues on the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee killed the bill, even as they complimented the effort, shutting down the passionate debate as soon as it had begun.

The bill drew fierce opposition from neighborhood groups, city officials and affordable housing advocates, who argued it was too sweeping and that it would bring unintended consequences.

Anya Lawler, of the Western Center on Law & Poverty, argued that it was too simplistic of a solution, ignoring decades of research and advocacy on the preservation of affordable housing and development near transportation hubs. But she and many others, including Wiener, have said that legislation of this scope can take years to become law.

“This is just not the sort of bill that you can introduce in January and have tied up with a bow by April,” she said.

Thad Kousser, a professor of California politics at UC San Diego, pointed to proposals such as universal health care and even Proposition 13, which have taken — or will take — years to succeed.

“This bill is dead for this session, but this idea isn’t dead,” he said.

“Sometimes ideas need the right political conditions,” he added. “And California’s only going to have more of a housing crunch.”

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.